Ariana Grande’s Brother Thinks Lesbians Choose To Be That Way…Which Is Weird Because He’s Gay

I’m starting to regret being so hard on Ariana Grande, because now that I’ve heard her brother Frankie‘s views on homosexuality, it’s clear that ‘idiot’ runs in her family. Before I thought her inane comments must be the result of some kind of choice she was making to be a dummy, but now it’s become clear to me that she was just born that way!

Whereas in order to find out the full extent of Ariana’s delusion, we have to wait for her to give cringe-inducing interviews, Frankie is currently living in the Big Brotherhouse, so his every word is recorded on camera. What a gift! Which is how we came to see a conversation that he and the rest of his housemates were having on whether homosexuality is a choice.

First of all, if you’re a follower of oh, I don’t know science, you’ll know that that doesn’t even need to be a discussion. But even though Frankie IS HIMSELF GAY (and thirty-one, so he should know better), he’s pretty sure that you’re only ever born with a predisposition to homosexuality (through ‘genetic markers in your blood’), and that the rest is a choice you make due to how you were raised. That’s already incredibly incorrect, but just wait, there’s more!

That theory, which he’s pontificating on to a room full of reality TV contestants who don’t know any better (plus a human American flag who lies on the floor the entire time), apparently only applies to gay men. Only they are born with this mythical predisposition — women never are.

“Any lesbians choose to become lesbians later in life. Women who have been with man after man after man after man choose to become a lesbian later in life. Gay men it doesn’t work so much that way. It’s usually they’re like ‘oh okay, no I’m gay.’”

UN-believable. And like I said, other people in the house are totally down with his claims, accepting them as fact simply because Frankie happens to be a member of the community that he’s so ignorant about. Every person accepts the statement that all lesbians and some gay men CHOOSE to become gay after being mistreated by members of the opposite sex.

I’ve never been so confused ever in my life? He’s literally being homophobic and he’s gay? What?

Lauren

Just because someone is gay doesn’t automatically make them a beacon of enlightenment. I once met a (very butch) lesbian who thought the idea of two men kissing was gross and they shouldn’t do it in public. LGBT people can be just as ignorant as straight people.

MiamiMan

Amen sister. The only time I’ve ever been called nigger was in gay bars.

Jay Dee

I’m starting to worry about they way THEY were raised because they are both incredibly stupid.

Alexis Rhiannon

For real.

Olivia Wilson

The hair bleach likely seeped through to his brain and ruined it. Or maybe he was born that way, unlike lesbians according to him.

Mollie Goldstein

UGH! He annoys me so much on BB! It’s like he doesn’t think about anything that is coming out of his mouth! He’s backstabbed his best friend in the house and since the “big reveal” about who is sister is, he’s been so aggravating to watch!

Alexis Rhiannon

That sounds so annoying. Are they all related to famous people this season, or just him?

Mollie Goldstein

Just Frankie. He kept it a secret for the first half of the competition to make himself not a target. When he told everyone he called himself a “social media mogul” and making fun of others who only had like 1000 followers on Twitter.

Alexis Rhiannon

Ugh, shut up Frankie.

FemelleChevalier

Is it weird that I’m not that surprised? I’ve been called a potential cheater solely for being bi by both gay and lesbians, so I’m pretty sure that not all LGBT people are sensible.

michele moss

Shoot me please. I just can’t with the utter nonsense with ignorant people. Choice?..what voice may I ask. Maybe the choices were gone by the time I was born..lesbian by birth. Happy by choice.

Frank

Homosexuality is a religion, as no one is born with advanced knowledge of sex. This is something you learn.

nzchicago

And how did you learn your religion of heterosexuality?

nzchicago

If nobody was born with an innate potential for sexual attraction (even if it doesn’t manifest until puberty), how do you think every animal on the planet would procreate? Who “teaches” them? Nobody does. And they are not sexual when they are born. When they reach maturity, their inner programming just kicks in on its own. Why should humans be any different?

Frank

They look down, and see their genitals, and think “hmm i wonder what i am supposed to do with that?” Then, at some point, they end up seeing the genitals of the other gender and think “ahaa!”
And none of that is programmed in the DNA, except for whatever genital is formed by your chromosomal triggers.
So if sexuality is inborn, only hetersexuals can make that claim. Homosexuals cannot. For homosexuals to make that claim, it would be like attempting to claim that you were born to walk with your hands, and your feet were meant to graps objects and perform complex actions.
I dont see any people out there that spend their whole lives walking on their hands because that is not the reason why we have them. We were born to walk on our feet once we learn how to do it, just like we were born to use our genital in conjunction with the opposite genital, once we learn how to do it.

nzchicago

A small problem with your theory is that animals don’t think, and they don’t have “ahaa” moments. They act instinctively. And that is programmed into their brains from birth.

But even humans don’t operate that way. If that’s how it was for you, you are an unusual exception. Seriously, you stared at your penis and said “I wonder what I am supposed to do with that?” Unlikely. Sorry, but when people reach a certain age, they just see a person of whichever gender they are attuned to, and they get turned on and horny. It’s an automatic process, no “ahaa” required. You don’t learn it, whether you are straight or gay.

You are hung up on genitals only being for procreation. But even animals know that genitals are for pleasure (in fact, they don’t actually know that copulating leads to procreation – they do it because it feels good, or because it’s instinctive). Lots of animals have sex for fun, and do it in all sorts of non-procreative way, including same-sex. Sorry it doesn’t fit your limited world-view, but just saying you don’t approve because it “ain’t right” doesn’t change the fact that it exists.

Frank

“Animals dont think” is your theory? Like i said. Your statements are not supported by science, and hence they constitute a belief based upon faith. All beliefs based upon faith are religion.

“Sorry, but when people reach a certain age, they just see a person of whichever gender they are attuned to, and they get turned on and horny” and you believe this occurs spontaneously? So when i reach a certain age and start to formulate a sexual attraction to animals, why is this also not biological instict?
Animals stalk each other in the wild and brutally murder each other for food. Should we humans just disregard our brains and start to act like animals, just so that some gay people can find psychological shelter in their dysfunctions?
Sorry, i was born a human, and so were you, but if you would like to leave the human race and join the animal kingdom, by all means, as long as you stay away from my children, i will never be in conflict with you.

nzchicago

If you genuinely believe that animals have the same rational thought processes as humans, there is not much I can say to you.

Of course it occurs spontaneously, otherwise no animal would ever reproduce. To my knowledge, no animals has ever been observed teaching its young how to be attracted, or how to have sex. They know instinctively, because the body produces hormones that stimulate arousal.

I am sorry that you are sexually attracted to animals, but that is not the subject at hand. Interspecies sex is extremely rare in the animal world – it seems to be a feature of a tiny number of humans. If you are one of them, I hope you are not harming any innocent animals.

Same-sex behaviour, on the other hand, has been observed in over a thousand species and occurs regularly.

It’s funny that of all the examples you could have trotted out of animal behaviour that humans should not emulate, you chose hunting and eating other animals for food, a completely natural behaviour that humans have also been engaging in for all history and still do. Do you honestly think that since you buy your meat nicely wrapped in plastic at a supermarket, you are not “acting like an animal” when you eat a cow that has been brutally slaughtered for your benefit? Guess what, humans are also part of the animal kingdom.

Likewise, keep your distance from my children. They are healthy and happy, and I don’t want them being messed up by archaic attitudes and prejudices.

Frank

You can walk on your hands if it makes you happy. I prefer to walk on my feet. First you say that animals are too stupid to understand sex. Then you say that because animals are gay, they are an example for why humans are gay.
How about when a dog humps your leg? Is that not evidence of a dog consenting to sex with a human? In fact, a dog humping someones leg is not rare. It actually happens all the time. Now if you were to interpret that as love, and marry the dog, then that is also your choice. You were not born that way, and neither was fido.

nzchicago

A dog does not hump your leg because he finds your leg sexually attractive. He’s just looking for a convenient object to rub against. It’s a form of masturbation. Humans masturbate too, It doesn’t mean you have fallen in love with yourself and want to marry yourself. It has nothing to do with sexual orientation.

Alexis Rhiannon

Well said.

Frank

And now you can read the mind of a dog too? Please. When a dog humps an inanimate object, or starts to lick its own genitals, this is self masterbation. But when to people get together to masterbate each other, this is a form of sexual attraction. Same thing for the dog that humps your leg, because it knows that you are alive and it still does it, and you have no right to claim you can read the mind of a dog. All i am saying, is that the dog was not born that way. I have absolutely no doubt that persons who are homosexual, or who are attracted to any other sexual fetish such as bestiality, necrophilia, pedophilia, sadomasochism, etc., are actually feeling sexual urges that drive them to want to engage those forms of sex. All I am saying, is that none of these people are born that way. Sexual urges are not ‘activated’ after laying inert and hiding in the DNA record somewhere we cannot find it. In identical twins that share the exact DNA, there are instances where one can grow up heterosexual, and the other homosexual. That by itself is proof that it is not in the DNA record. How do you explain that one? Are you claiming that one identical twin is following his DNA programming, while the other is just ‘faking it’?
So all i am saying is that it is impossible for any animal, human or otherwise, to be born with preprogrammed sexual arrousal templates that are ‘triggered’ at some later point in time. The way you experience the world starting since birth, is what eventually shapes your sexuality. Period. You cannot say that people have everything they will ever do in their entire lives, somehow programed into the DNA record. As if to say that at 35 years 51 days, and 13 seconds of life, that i will order a slice of pizza at the local pizzeria, and this action was programmed into my DNA at conception. In one sense, you would be correct because since g-d created us, he already knows everything we will do before we even do it, but for us humans and the concept of free will, there is not such a thing that our choices are preprogrammed into our DNA. We are either male or female at birth, and from there we observe the world and eventually learn how to have sex. For some people (and animals), their observations of the world cause them sexual confusion. It is sad when you see it, and i feel bad for gays because i know that most of them are salvagable and can be brought back to a healty and normal expression of sexuality, but in this current climate where there are certain ultra-militant homosexuals that are attempting to force others to believe that they are born that way, it is not possible to get through to the ones who are salvagable. At least i saved a few in my life, all of them lesbians, by seducing them back into liking men, but since i am a man i don’t have such a methodology developed for gay men. It would be up to women to seduce gay men back to the normal expression of sex, and i am certain that many gay men can also be saved if there were strong women out there to save them, but there is a shortage of very seductive woman who have the skills enough to seduce some of these hard-core male homosexuals.

Alexis Rhiannon

Go home, you’re drunk.

FemelleChevalier

All I am saying, is that none of these people are born that way.

Maybe, maybe not. But a person can be predisposed to something based on their innate neurological pattern. Brain and pituitary gland is weird that way.

Also, external variables have different effects on every individual’s temperament and emotional/physical adaptation to various stimuli. Ergo, humanity doesn’t have a “standard” mold to comply in terms of personality, preference, etcetera. There exist only “average” mold based on numbers and statistics. That’s why an “average” human can be assumed as heterosexual based on the majority of the population, and this is still unsure considering that some countries either have strict rules against homosexuality or it is stigmatized.

In identical twins that share the exact DNA…

That is completely bogus. They don’t even share the same fingerprint. Your science is drunk.

We are either male or female at birth, and from there we observe the world and eventually learn how to have sex.

People smarter than most of us have studied and acknowledged the presence and legitimacy of sexual orientation on humans. Also, there is an observable patterns throughout the animal kingdom on homosexuality, proving that homosexuality isn’t a “religion” and a mere societal construct. By that, the scientist have concluded that sexual orientation is innate and organic and not at all influenced by ~society~ because animals thrive on a more primal instinct than humans.

At least i saved a few in my life, all of them lesbians, by seducing them back into liking men…

Bisexuals. There are people called bisexuals, like me, and it’s possible that you just assumed them as lesbians. And there are also people who mislabel themselves or whose sexuality doesn’t conform to a strict label.

OR, just a thought, maybe you’re just a living, breathing, disposable dildo to them. Why not try coloring your penis to attract more lesbians?

Frank

It is impossible to be born gay, as is proven by the following:http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/02/men-women-brains-wired-differently
Your gender is not only openly displayed by your genital, but it is also privately displayed by the polarity of your brain.
There are only two types of brain polarities observed by science. One type is right-left polarity (female) and the other type is front-back polarity (male). In the thousands of brain scans performed using this technology, there has never been observed a male brain inside a female body, or vice versa. In 100% of all males scanned (including homosexual males), the polarity of the brain is always front-back. In 100% of all females scanned using this technology (including lesbians), the polarity is right-left. Thus, one would expect to find in homosexual persons, a reversal of polarity of the actual brain, but it has never been observed. So the only persons that can benifit from a brain scan, are hermaphrodites, as the brain scan will confirm their actual gender if there is no visible dominant genital.
So in terms of biology, if DNA had any effect on complex sexual language of the brian, the first place we would see it is in the brain scans where we could easily confirm that a human bearing a male genital, also has a female brain in that his polarity is right-left rather than front-back.
Furthermore, there is no gene in the DNA that has ever been observed to trigger homosexuality. Just being born itself gives any human the biological ability to become attracted to the same sex. All humans can be induced to formulate same-sex attraction, just like any human can be induced to commit murder. So for every person who claims they are ‘born gay’ this claim can never be verified. It is literally impossible to prove. As a result, the only way that a government can view such a claim, is to aknowledge that it is an unproven claim and will forever remain an unproven claim. We cannot then give gays special status in society by allowing our government to acknowledge that homosexuality is inborn, or else we will also have to acknowlegde that judaism, christianity or islam is ‘inborn’ because these religions describe biological-psychological belief structures. For example, christians belief in a trinity, which is similar to the ID/EGO/SUPEREGO brain structure discovered by Frued. Perhaps a persons brain can be born ‘tripolar’ and thus they are biologically predisposed to being christian since christianity acknowledges the tripolar structure of ones biological brain. We could make similar extensions for judaism and islam. In that sense, we could then extrapolate that the core precepts of religion are inborn and thus people are born as jews, christians or muslims, and this biology cannot be changed. But we know this is not true because people do convert between religions. We also know that homosexuality is not inborn because people have converted from homosexual to heterosexual. Furthermore, at least one of the females i seduced was claiming to be strict lesbian, not bi-sexual, but i witnessed first hand that she was just confused. A gay person does not have the right to invade the mind of others and judge them. When i stated that she converted back to heterosexuality, you then labeled her a ‘bisexual’ when she has never returned to attraction to women, and in actuality (almost 20 years later) she is a full and strict heterosexual, and actually looks back at that time in her life when she was under the influence of another woman, with disgust and regret. There are many other persons who have converted, but the militant gays refuse to acknowledge that they exist and start to label them bi-sexual even when they no longer have attraction (and have in fact developed repulsion to the notion of same sex activity). So i have no doubt that people can formulate sexual attraction to the same sex, just like people can formulate attraction to christian trinitarian psychology, or any other form of psychologically comforting orientation, but the human brain is so powerful it is impossible to claim that these events are unchangable and just solidly programmed somewhere in the DNA that we can never observe or detect. Thus, homosexuality is a religion, just like other psychological configurations which are also popular such as those represeted by judaism, christianity or islam. judaism at its core (removing the actual text) is based upon a binary male-female kinship with g-d. Christianity is primarily based upon a trinitarian kinship with g-d. Islam is based upon a non-biological kinship with g-d of a submissive orientation. These three core psychological configurations cause persons to be attracted to either of these religions, and the actual religious texts themselves are like a user-manual for your brain. When you happen upon a user-manual that fits your biological brain structure, you naturally ebb towards one of these religions. In that way, once you claim that homosexuality is a psychological that is inborn, you must also acknowledge that judaism, christianity or Islam is inborn. Gays don’t want to do that because they want to be considered ‘special’ and they want ‘special status’ not ‘equal status’

FemelleChevalier

Your gender is not only openly displayed by your genital, but it is also privately displayed by the polarity of your brain.

Wrong. Sexuality isn’t determined through “brain polarity”. And, there’s no such thing as “brain polarity” in the first place. All human being uses every area and region of their brain, and it only differs through specified higher/lower neural activity through conduction of neural pathways.

Basic anatomy suggest that there are two brain hemisphere, the left and the right. The “front and back” means a dominant presence of neural activity on the occipital and frontal regions, while the “left and right” suggest temporal and parietal. There is also the Broddman’s area, which encompasses the OVERLAPPING sensorimotor functions of the neural pathways. The key here is SENSORIMOTOR functions.

So, that article cannot and shouldn’t be oversimplified without prior knowledge of basic neurology. It’s an insult to science and even basic comprehension.

Furthermore, there is no gene in the DNA that has ever been observed to trigger homosexuality.

There is also no known gene that suggest the presence of heterosexual gene. Why? Because locating sexual predisposition in our genetic makeup ISN’T a clear-cut thing. Our DNA is basically a human blueprint, and even finding the predisposition to schizophrenia means that scientists need to understand the what’s and how’s to even determine the strains related to it. Behavioral is even harder, because all behaviors are possibly influenced by external modifications. We can only determined possible predisposition to a certain behavior, which encompasses a lot of deductions based on every possible angle by the presented data of DNA sequence.

…christians belief in a trinity, which is similar to the ID/EGO/SUPEREGO brain structure discovered by Frued.

Brain structure? Really? No, it is a theory on human behavior. Period.

I won’t bother with rest because I can only handle so much headache. I’ll just say that one misguided woman isn’t a representation of a whole demographic. So to even form an opinion based on such shaky foundation makes an opinion, for me, as irrelevant.

Frank

If there is no such thing as ‘brain polarity’ then there is no such thing as ‘sexual orientation’, so we are back to square one, which is you have not accepted my proof, and i have not accepted yours, and thus we are having a religious dispute rather than a scientific dispute.
“Because locating sexual predisposition in our genetic makeup ISN’T a clear-cut thing”
Your right. It is simply impossible, and will remain impossible until the end of time, because for every single homosexual person, there are neural pathways specific to only that person which create his homosexual logic structure. No two humans to have ever sxisted in the entire humanity, have arrived at a homosexual logic structure by taking the exact same biological path.
So no one is born homosexual. Everyone is born human, and from there anything is possible with anyone. I could be cloned tomorrow, and one of my clones brought up to be gay, and the other one straight. As a result, environment is always the deciding factor, and once you establish that, it is also established that environment can change. Biology cannot change, and if you are born with a male or female genital or a male or female brain, you cannot will it away no matter how much your brain tries. You cannot close your eyes and wish you had no hands, or no feet, and you wake up without hands or feet. Biology is persistant in an irreversable way. And who are you to call another woman ‘misguided’ when you know nothing about her. Just because she doesn’t fit into your theory, her and thousands like her are not human in your eyes. Please.

FemelleChevalier

If there is no such thing as ‘brain polarity’ then there is no such thing as ‘sexual orientation’, so we are back to square one, which is you have not accepted my proof, and i have not accepted yours, and thus we are having a religious dispute rather than a scientific dispute.

False. Your proof is a questionable, simplified article that can be misread by people like you—and you did!—with a political agenda who apparently have no clear understanding of the intricacies of the brain. Equating “brain polarity” to sexual orientation is scientifically false and doesn’t even make sense. Mine is not an opinion. It’s a fact. Whether you accept it as such is your prerogative, but that doesn’t mean that the two reasoning is even remotely equal.

…there are neural pathways specific to only that person which create his homosexual logic structure.

Wrong. Neural pathways specific to behavior stems from sensorimotor functions, which can be a predictor of a possible behavioral pattern. But, it is in no way an absolute quantifier, seeing that we are basically predicting what the outcome is which can be affected by modifiable factors.

Sexual orientation is innate, but the behavior resulting from it from it varies person-to-person. Nature gives the blueprint sans behavioral pattern (only predisposition to certain behaviors), and through cultural plasticity, an organism’s biological make-up CAN be modified. And yes, including brain activity and development.

Biology cannot change…

YES IT CAN AND IT HAS. The problem is that you’re oversimplifying it.

And who are you to call another woman ‘misguided’ when you know nothing about her.

You’re right, I don’t. But since we’re being science-y here, one anecdotal evidence of one women is irrelevant to the grand scheme of things. That’s why she doesn’t represent a demographic. Empirical evidence doesn’t hold merit unless specifically used in statistics.

Personally, I don’t really care for your bigotry. I’ve heard worse than you. My problem is you reasoning your stance with pseudo-scientific bullshit that doesn’t even make sense, your deductive fallacies, and your insistence on the “unnaturalness” of homosexuality on the guise of illogical reasoning. Homosexuality occurs in nature, with facts to back it up, so it is in fact natural.

Frank

“with a political agenda who apparently have no clear understanding of the intricacies of the brain.”
I have a degree in psychology from one of the most prominent schools in the country. I simplify it because it can be simplified.
And to simplify it in just one word, religion. Unless you want a different word, in which case i offer you this one:
Unicorns

FemelleChevalier

A degree in psychology? Bullshit. I’m in the medical field, and you’re not showing any sliver of expertise nor basic coherence in human behavior and neurology.

But if really do have one, then you need to go back to school. This time, start paying attention more to class.

Frank

I will share one observation with you during my college days if i might. The majority of people attending that program at the time when i was in attendance, were female, There were even some classes where i was the only male in a class of about 25 students.
Ever since Freud cracked the riddle of the mind (ID/EGO/SUPEREGO, Opedipus/Elektra, anal/oral stage etc) there were no more discoveries to be had. Even Carl Jung agreed that one cannot be born gay with his concept of tabula rasa. The feminists who have invaded the field as of late, are all chasing unicorns in their minds.
Having a vagina, is not the end of the world. You should just be proud of what you have and move on. The souls of men and women are equal in the eyes of g-d, but our bodies are irreconcilably different.

FemelleChevalier

You see, the problem with you is that you’re treating archaic psychological reasoning on behavioral patterns as an undeniable and absolute proof that homosexuality is a societal structure stemming from external influences only. It doesn’t take a genius to realize that innate neurological structure of the brain plays a huge factor to any behavioral pattern. It’s a fact supported by science. Aside from that, your anti-homosexual bias is CLEARLY clouding your interpretation of their (Freud’s and Carl Jung’s) theories.

Having a vagina, is not the end of the world. You should just be proud of what you have and move on.

Who says it is? I like my body and even my brain. I like being a woman and everything about it, and I also like being with both men and women. Because that’s my sexual orientation.

Frank

Freud and Jung were geniuses. Their observations are nothing close to archaic. Tabula rasa is a fact. The only thing biological about any sexual fetish, is that it is formulated in the tabula medium, but in every single human, there is one commonality bewtween each tabula. At birth, it is clean and void of thought, until we have our first thought, then our second, then our third, etc. As we build our pyramid of thoughts, so do we build out logic structures. As we move towards puberty, our logic structures manifest in sexual awareness of some sort.
But still, the undeniable truth, is that the slate is clean at birth. No one, at conception, is preprogrammed with thoughts. No one. Not even a gay person, or a bisexual such as yourself. In 100% of all humans, tabula rasa is a fact. It doesnt matter what the infinite configuration of your DNA. Everyone has an equal chance of becoming homosexual or heterosexual. It is the environment that decides. Because heterosexuality is our environment, it automatically breeds vastly more heterosexuals than homosexuals. That does not mean that people cant slip between the cracks of what is normally a very solid heterosexual support system in our socie. Advents in social technology, and the ability of a minority to thus weild extreme influence upon the majority, has allowed for much more people to experiment with the psychology of exploring/altering your ‘sexual orientation.’
Nevertheless, procreative heterosexuality is unique and special enough to withstand all attempts by others to push conterfiet alternatives.

FemelleChevalier

Yes, they are geniuses. But those are still theories and not laws. Psychology is inherently theoretical unless backed up with actual scientific findings.

It doesnt matter what the infinite configuration of your DNA. Everyone has an equal chance of becoming homosexual or heterosexual. It is the environment that decides.

That is only an assumption with little to no basis on its scientific findings.

Also, you just supported my point earlier that external modifications can influence the outcome of any behavior. We both agree on that. But my point is that there are certain qualities inherent on certain individuals due to their distinct genetic make-up, which is why tabula rasa is a flawed theory. DNA is finite, and it’s the human blueprint. It determines why and how certain congenital defects are present, how immunization to deadly diseases of a certain demographic is possible, how genetic imprint—that modified the paternal and maternal genetic make-up through environmental factors—can be passed down to offsprings, and how certain behavioral pattern can be associated with biology.

Psychological theories are used only to possibly predict behaviors through formulaic reasoning without considering an individual’s genetic make-up and predisposition variables. Which is basically an incomplete form of assessing an individual, so it’s basically flawed if you only use it as a basis into anything. As supposedly someone with a degree, you should be aware of that.

Frank

“there are certain qualities inherent on certain individuals due to their distinct genetic make-up, which is why tabula rasa is a flawed theory”
the most prominent inherent quality of every human, is the ability to think. How we think, cannot be specifically attributable to any biological template. Tabula rasa is the truth. It is not a theory.
“congenital defects are present, how immunization to deadly diseases” these things do not impact HOW we think.
the only genetic predisposition every human has, is the ability to think, how and what we think is not inherited. There are many differnt pathways to arrive at the same thought, no two pathways are the same for any two human. Our experiences are as unique as our DNA. Just because groups of people have similar experiences, does not mean that they all took the same path to arrive there.
There is a good movie you should watch, it is called Pi. There is a character in the movie who says the following:

“Sol Robeson: Hold on. You have to slow down. You’re losing it. You have to take a breath. Listen to yourself. You’re connecting a computer bug I had with a computer bug you might have had and some religious hogwash. You want to find the number 216 in the world, you will be able to find it everywhere. 216 steps from a mere street corner to your front door. 216 seconds you spend riding on the elevator. When your mind becomes obsessed with anything, you will filter everything else out and find that thing everywhere.”
Watch that movie, and when you get to the point in the movie where he says this line, it should all become clear to you at that time. I understand that gays want to believe they are born than way, and with that goal in mind, there is much scientific data that can seemingly make the case for biological inheritence, but once you filter out the noise and concentrate on the simplicity of the mind, which is ID/EDO/SUPEREGO, you will eventually realize which one of the three spoke first in your mind, and how your entire life was shaped by it.

FemelleChevalier

How we think, cannot be specifically attributable to any biological template. Tabula rasa is the truth. It is not a theory.

It is truthful in a sense that it exist as a formulaic reasoning for the general state and development of the human consciousness. Simply being true doesn’t make it absolute nor a law. It’s still a theory in and of itself.

…how and what we think is not inherited.

It’s not, that’s why homosexuality is biologically sound and NOT based on just thinking nor consciousness. This is why tabula rasa is flawed if one applies it to something organic. Because, if it is an absolute law of nature, then homosexuality wouldn’t exist IN THE FIRST PLACE. But why does it exist even in the most suppressive environment?

Yes, factors affecting one’s sexual orientation can include environment, but this is just as true as when an individual grow up in another culture and absorbing the cultural norms. The perspective and the resulting behavior pattern can be dissimilar, but the organic nature is always present. Desire and attraction is primal, organic, and instinctual. Ergo, homosexuality IS inherently biological.

There are many differnt pathways to arrive at the same thought, no two pathways are the same for any two human. Our experiences are as unique as our DNA. Just because groups of people have similar experiences, does not mean that they all took the same path to arrive there.

Again, you’re proving my point. Experiences and environmental factors do vary and it’s a given fact that it influences who we are. But it’s still an incomplete assessment (and only acceptable in a philosophical/rhetoric thinking). Predisposition to these various environmental factors either confirm or deny the biological make-up inherent to an individual, and that includes sexual orientation.

…there is much scientific data that can seemingly make the case for biological inheritence…

Because science is logical and hard facts, philosophical and rhetoric musing is not.

…but once you filter out the noise and concentrate on the simplicity of the mind, which is ID/EDO/SUPEREGO, you will eventually realize which one of the three spoke first in your mind, and how your entire life was shaped by it.

Again, not applicable to the topic at hand. I studies these, yes, and I’m aware of the teachings. But to form such subjective—and highly debatable—opinions on the topic at hand based only on a a formulaic theory (and claiming it as undeniable and absolute truth) that doesn’t encompass nor acknowledge distinct genetics and complex DNA matrix is, honestly, irrelevant to me.

Frank

Again, you are not taking heed of the advice i gave you from sol robeson. Because you are bi-sexual, you are biased and skewed in your examination of the factual evidence. As a result, what has occcured in your logical reasoning, is that you have developed the hypothesis you wish to prove, and are only looking for facts that support this grand hypothesis, while rejecting other facts that do not factor into it. For example, you continuously discount that people have formulated same-sex attraction, and then un-formulated it and converted to heterosexuality. There are hundreds of thousands of persons who have come out publically to confirm that they have accomplished this, but in your world, they don’t exist or they are lying or ‘misguided’ or every other explanation. In fact, there are likely millions or even hundreds of millions of persons throughout the entire history of humanity whom in their lifetime, they have developed a same sex attraction at some point in their lives, however brief or extended, and have worked it back out of their psychology and gravitated towards a strict heterosexual lifestyle and stuck to it. You are transfixed upon a minority of persons who openly declare that it is impossible for them to change because there is some biology that is preventing them. Again, since they cannot prove the biological part of their story, and since there are millions of people who have changed on their own, the actual science dictates that your views are entirely philosophical without any ‘holy grail’ that can predict, with 100% certainty when a child will become heterodeviant. You may also attempt to respond to my claim that your views are religious/philosophical rather than fact, by claiming that I am also expressing view that are philosophical/religious rather than fact. This is when we automatically come to an understanding that we are arguing about religion, and when it comes to government, their role is limited when it comes to religion. They cannot take sides in a religious dispute, one way or another, but when the government starts placing the term ‘sexual orientation’ into actual codified laws, this is when the government starts to take sides in a religious dispute by affirming a religion in violation of the establishment clause of the US constitution. So when we try to find a system of laws that can actually work to protect everyone from discrimination, and we make categories such as race, religion, national origin, gender, disability, then we are safe, but once we insert the term ‘sexual orientation’ into the list, we are giving special status to gays. At best, gays can claim non-discrimination protections under only two categories, which are either religious discrimination, or disability (because they claim they are born not to procreate with their significant other). If you insert ‘sexual orientation’ into the list, then christians can argue that you must also insert ‘trinitarian orientation’ into the list, and jews can argue that you should also insert ‘binary orientation’ into the list, and muslims can request that you insert ‘quadratic orientation’ into the list, and so on for each religion that has a specific and generally identifiable psychological template as with gays. In reality, gays call their ‘orientation’ a ‘sexual orientation’ but it actually is not born of sexual desire. The psychology of a homosexual is based upon ‘not-orientation’ as per an emphasis upon the brains ‘not’ gate from the three identified by Frued (as in Id/Ego/Superego replicate And/Or/Not gates of boolean logic interms of their function).
So the homosexual or bi-sexual generally looks at other humans, and asses “i am special because i am everything you are NOT”. It is a type of deliberate minority allocation function of the brain whereby the psychology of a homosexual looks for the best way to make themselves a minority in relation to the majority, and thereby imposes a logic loop to guide this behaviour in order to force themselves to believe that they are a minority for purposes of addressing their fear of a realization that the world is not self-centric, and that they are competing in a vast space of identical beings (which give them a fear about not being able to distinguish themselves as different). This is a complex psychology that has many implications, as disequilibrium in the boolean AND/OR/NOT template which is heavily skewed in favor of the NOT gate causes many different psychosis, not just sexual ones. For some people, it is expressed sexually, hence a strong desire to distinguish ones self via sexual expression that is against the majority opinion. When they are thereby not recieved well by others, they look for even more complex means by which to convince others to accept their ‘minority’ status, and part of this drives them to construct complex ‘scientific’ explanations to convince others that they were ‘born special’ in order to play upon people’s general understanding and agreement that one cannot change the body they are born with and thus if there is anyone to blame for having been a minority, they must ‘direct’ that blame at g-d and not at the human who is incapable of choice in the matter.
There are very stable explanations for the advent of minority psychosis, and there are plenty of persons who engage many other types of activities (not necessarily sexual) due to minority psychosis. Sexuality is just one of many. But as i said, i completely understand why you are transfixed upon wanting to ‘prove’ that your minority status is not a choice. Furthermore, i really don’t care what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms as long as they are not harming someone else, because i am against government snooping on anyone. Nevertheless, to attemp to extend sexual philosophy/religion into the public sphere is not proper, as this is religous proselytization and should not be allowed. When gays assault us on the TV and media and everywhere else by forcing sexuality upon us, it is like when you are sitting in your home minding your own business, and a Jehovah Witness nocks on your door to try and convert you. The public should have a ‘do not call’ list for when they do not want to be exposed to other persons religious views, and children should always be on a ‘do not call’ list in every public environment unless the parents sign a waiver and agree to allow their children to be subject to proselytization.
So I am firmly in belief of ‘to each their own’ and would never seek out homosexuals to convert to heterosexuality. Even in my past, the girls which i seduced were not because i directly wanted to alter their religious beliefs, but it was only because i had a personal interest in them after meeting them. Aside from that, i don’t go out there seeking gays to ask them to submit to psychoanalysis so i can cure them, even though i know i can do it. Even in these forums, i only comment because it is a public forum and it is unfair that persons can spread misinformation in the public forums without restraint or without there being some alternative viewpoint available to the public so as to make an INFORMED decision.

Jay Dee

If you were a REAL pyscologist you would know that Freud has been mostly discredited. Yes he was a genius, but many of his theories have later proved to be untrue. I am CURRENTLY studying neuroscience and everything you have said is either outdated or just plain incorrect. If you really have a degree in psychology you need to either go back to school to get updated, or read some scientific journals. The human brain is extremely complex and our understanding of it continually changes. Nothing you have said is congruent with current brain studies.

Frank

And so where is the proof that a person is born gay? Since you are so much more educated than I am, can you cite the specific neuroscience evidence you have studied that proves, inconclusively that freud was wrong and you are right?
I have studied all the major ‘scientific’ proof cited by gays in support of their theory that they are born gay, and 100% of their proof is inconclusive at best. What i noticed about gay ‘scientists’ is that they pretty much heavily rely upon all studies that appear to at best, give evidence of correlation, but as you know (if you claim to be educated), correlation is not automatically causation. Furthermore, I have seen studies which are vastly more authentic in proving that sexual fetishes are not inborn, but the gays do not acknowledge these very simple yet powerful studies that they cannot explain. Even the entire ex-gay movement is claimed by the homosexuals to be a farce, when there are thousands of persons who lived as homosexual, and then left the lifestyle proving that if you try hard enough, the human mind is capable of overcoming any limitation.
Since homosexuality is not in-born (ie it is impossible to prove that there is an immutable biological component that makes it impossible for any human to alter their sexual preferences), then it is a lifestyle choice. Just being born with a brain gives people the ability to learn any sexual fetish, and once a person learns a sexual fetish that they like, it can become an addiction just like alchoholism and drug addiction. The alchoholic cannot imagine a life without alchohol, and they have a strong compulsion to drink on a daily basis, and even if they stop drinking for many of them the urge remains for life. Same thing with homosexuality as once someone discovers this sexual fetish and achieves a strong desire for it, you will want to engage same-sex relations every day, all the time, and your mind will become obsessed with it. Even if you stop actually engagning in the physical act of same-sex attraction, those attractions may still remain and it may take years, even decades, to achieve an ability to reverse or remove those attractions, if you achieve it at all. Still, there is proof that persons have stopped drinking alchohol, and have even overcome the urge to drink, just as there are people who have stopped engaging in sexual fetishes against the natural order, and have even overcome those desires to achieve heterosexual desires which replace them. If homosexuality is inborn, then every religion is inborn including judaism, christianity,islam, and also all addictions are inborn such as alchoholism, drug addiction etc. We cannot make a special exception for homosexuals without making that same exception for all other persons who wish to life a certain lifestyle. If we make homosexuality legal, then a persons right to use drugs must also be made legal because maybe they were ‘born’ to use drugs. Who are we to hurt people who are ‘born’ to use drugs by putting them in jail for following their ‘substance orientation’ yet we celebrate people who decide that they have a biological ‘sexual orientation’ that can also cause harmful effects in the stability of ones psychology.

Frank

What children? The ones you purchased from some surrogate? The DNA you borrowed to harvest another human being because you claim you were born not to be procreative. If you claim that you are born gay, then you are admitting that you were born not to procreate. So why adopt or harvest children as if they were toys? If nature made you gay, then maybe nature intended that you should not raise children. May nature intended that all people who are impotent, are designed from birth not to raise children.

Alexis Rhiannon

Thank goodness, I was worried you wouldn’t expand your argument to insult more groups than just homosexuals. Really relieved that you fit in the impotent and infertile as well.

nzchicago

My family is none of your business.

FemelleChevalier

Being able to ~procreate~ is based on one’s fertility, not sexuality. Impotency is a complication possibly due to a medical condition. Since anyone—gay or straight—can be impotent for various reasons (which even an idiot should be aware of), then you’re not making sense.

Parenting is not as simple as being able to conceive. As long as the child is loved and cared for, who are anyone to deny gays and lesbians to be a parent?

FemelleChevalier

“Animals dont think” is your theory? Like i said. Your statements are not supported by science, and hence they constitute a belief based upon faith. All beliefs based upon faith are religion.

Most animals lack the specifics that are included in our criteria of intelligence. Our criteria are composed of self awareness, universal awareness, ability to reason, problem-solving skills, memorization, language, innovation, etcetera. It IS supported by science, and the science community is SO SORRY that you weren’t inform.

And no, not all belief based on faith are religion. That’s fallacy. Belief in religion is composed of a belief in supernatural, mysticism, divine intervention, and in a higher being. A person can have faith on something as tangible and logical as science, and science isn’t religion. I mean really, isn’t that common sense?